Basically, this. The real legal system is murky, confusing, and difficult. Find a real-life example that's sort of vaguely similar, make sure you explain things clearly in your book, and you'll be fine.
And that's exactly it, it is murky. I have asked experts other legal questions to which some gave opposite answers too, compared to others. So it seems that even the law as written, is open to interpretation to a degree. Some say that a witness can take the fifth, and not have to say anything at all. Others tell me that they have to talk if they have been subpoenaed but will get immunity, but they still have to talk. So either the fifth amendment is a right to remain silent or it's a right to immunity, but you still have to talk. But not sure which, or how I should treat it for my story.
I think that a large part of the confusion is that "a witness" is a huge, huge category, and they're not all the same. The barista that is an eyewitness to a shooting, the customers who witnessed the shooting, the possible accomplice to the shooting, the wife of the man that was paid to do the shooting, the wife of the man that paid for the shooting, the bank teller that put together the money withdrawn to pay the shooter, the owner of the coffeehouse where the shooting happened, the people who saw the argument between the man who was shot and the man who paid for the shooting, the police officer that responded to the shooting, the crime team that dealt with the scene, and the lab folks that dealt with the evidence, are all very, very different. But they're all potential witnesses.
That's not true either, because there are cases of people being forced to testify without immunity because the testimony sought can't incriminate them for one reason or another.
Oh okay, I thought we were talking about the fifth amendment cases particularly. Well in my story, the prosecutor is very ambitious to find out what a witness will say on the stand, so he subpeonaes her, not knowing what she will say, but hopes for the best, to see if their is enough evidence to go to trial. So I guess she would be forced to testify, since she is testifying against someone else, but if she takes the fifth to get out of it, then I guess she can remain silent, and the court will never know whether or not she would be incriminating herself or if she is just lying to get out of it? How does the court tell if someone is taking the fifth to get out of testifying as a lie, or if they actually have something to hide As far as what ChickenFreak said about witnesses being different, does that make a difference, legal wise? Can some types of witnesses, get immunity, and some cannot, if that's the case?
To my understanding, in *most* situations where people have been ordered to testify, it's either in a situation where the proscecutor already knows what the witness knows, but needs the witness's testimony on record, or else where the witness has already stated the information in the past. I'm not aware of any cases where people were forced to testify, without immunity, when the information might implicate them. (That'd definitely violate the 5th Amendment.)
Okay thanks. Well in my story, their is a witness at the scene of the crime, an innocent person. The prosecutor wants the witness to testify but she refuses to, because she is scared and does not want to get involved, and she refuses to give any prior statement. So the prosecutor subpoenaes her. But would a prosecutor be allowed to do that, if the witness gave no statement, prior?
